Traitor

Trump says Russia is being “fine” on Ukraine

Writing in the New York Times, David Sanger highlights the extent to which Donald Trump is going all out to support Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine:

President Trump’s intensifying effort in the past few weeks to rehabilitate Russia and usher President Vladimir V. Putin back into diplomatic society is remarkable for its speed, its characterization of Mr. Zelensky as the primary obstacle to peace, and its brazen denial that Russia is continuing the war that Mr. Trump says he is trying to end.

“Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” Mr. Trump said on Monday, speaking to reporters outside the White House as he left for a campaign rally. “They haven’t been doing much,” he said, making no mention of the Russian missiles and jet-powered drones that have been targeting apartment buildings in Kyiv and Ukraine’s surviving electricity grid.

In contrast, he said, “We’ve given a lot to Ukraine. They’ve given nothing to us. Remember that.”

As Sanger notes, Trump’s support for Putin is unique in American history. Previous administrations have made deals with erstwhile adversaries, as Nixon did with China, and given up on support for failing allies, as the U.S. did in Vietnam and Afghanistan. But never before have we outright switched sides, let alone supported an aggressor while vilifying that aggressor’s victim.

What makes Trump’s support for Putin even more remarkable is that Russia has, by many accounts, been actively aiding Iran against America in the war Trump started. Who says so? Well, among others, Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And the aid goes beyond intelligence sharing that has helped Iran target U.S. forces. Russia has also reportedly been sending Iran explosives and weapons components.

What would Republicans be saying if a Democratic president were supporting a foreign dictator even as that dictator was helping another nation kill American troops? They would be crying “treason.” But this is all apparently “fine” with Trump.

What’s going on here? It’s important to understand that — as Phillips O’Brien documents — Trump hasn’t “pivoted” away from Ukraine toward Russia. He has been a Putin supporter all along.

Thus when Trump says that “We’ve given a lot to Ukraine,” who, exactly, does he mean by “we”? He cut off all economic and military aid to Ukraine as soon as he took office. Here’s total support for Ukraine, by country, since January 2025:

True, the U.S. continued to share military intelligence with Ukraine while allowing Ukraine to use Elon Musk’s Starshield and permitting European nations to transfer some U.S. weapons to Ukraine. But these actions cost America nothing. The most you can say is that until recently Trump shied away from actively sabotaging Ukraine’s ability to defend itself.

And now even that restraint is gone. According to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. intelligence sharing was blocked “for some period of time,” although it appears to have resumed for now. Ukraine’s access to Starshield has been limited. And the Washington Post reports that the U.S. has been holding up European transfers of Patriot missiles to Ukraine.

There are two questions here. First, why does Trump love Putin and hate Zelenskyy? Second, why has he ripped off the mask and gone full pro-Russia in the past few weeks?

On the first question, Zelenskyy gave a blunt answer in a recent interview with the Financial Times: Trump, he asserted, has an instinctive affinity for autocrats and the super wealthy: “He speaks about it openly that he loves such people and he respects such people.” That’s clearly right.

I would add three points. First, Trump and his inner circle don’t just love autocrats. They hate democracy and rule of law — which means that they hate America and American values.

Second, Putin-worship was widespread on the authoritarian right even before Trump entered the picture, with many celebrating Russia’s anti-wokeness and perceived masculinity. Remarkably, the valorization of Russia’s supposed toughness has survived despite Russia’s repeated military humiliations. So Trump has been following a well-trodden path.

Finally, whatever else you may say about Zelenskyy, he’s a genuine hero, who showed great personal courage by staying in Kyiv when Russia invaded. And Trump surely resents the fact that Zelenskyy is everything he is not.

The second question is, why now? Why has Trump chosen this moment to switch from covert, deniable support for Putin to overtly, explicitly taking Russia’s side?

As I suggested yesterday, the answer lies precisely in Trump’s collapsing support at home. Nothing he does now is likely to avert Republican catastrophe in the midterms. Republican politicians have been going out of their way to avoid being seen with him on the campaign trail. Trump officials are already lawyering up in preparation for the probes a Democratic Congress will launch.

At this point, then, Trump effectively has nothing left to lose on the political front — and his political bankruptcy has freed him to become his worst self, indulging himself by doing what he always wanted to do — which includes supporting corrupt, murderous dictators.

And there will be much more of this to come. Trump can’t and won’t make America great again. But he can betray everything America stands for, and he’s doing it as we speak.

SOURCE: Paul Krugman (Substack), 20 October 2026. I subscribe to Mr. Krugman’s Substack, and I’m happy to share it occasionally with my own readers. }}}}}trr


Donald Trump claims Russia has been “fine” in Ukraine, and Michael Weiss, who has witnessed Russian atrocities firsthand, is furious. Weiss and former CIA officer Marc Polymeropoulos examine Trump’s increasingly alarming alignment with Putin, reports that Elon Musk interfered with Ukraine’s satellite defenses, Pete Hegseth’s refusal to release desperately needed Patriot missiles, and whether Trump now fits the intelligence definition of a Russian agent of influence.

SOURCE: “Michael Weiss Goes Nuclear After Trump Says Russia Has Been ‘Fine’ in Ukraine,” The Bulwark (YouTube), 20 October 2026


“Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine. They haven’t been doing much,” U.S. President Donald Trump remarked to a group of journalists outside the White House on Oct. 19.

The comments came as tensions between Kyiv and Washington are rising after reports that the U.S. stopped warning Kyiv of incoming Russian ballistic missiles and limited the use of Starshield, a military version of Elon Musk’s Starlink, for Ukraine, making it difficult to intercept Russian attacks on Ukraine.

While Russia wages its war with no regard for civilian lives or human dignity, these are just some of the things that Trump seemingly considers “fine.”

The U.S. president spoke only hours after Russia had launched another deadly attack on the people of Ukraine a few hours before he made his comments. A Russian drone struck a park in the town of Nova Vodolaha, Kharkiv Oblast, killing six and injuring at least 15 others.

Inna Mariukhna, a 28-year-old teacher at a local school, was one of those killed in the attack. She was pushing her 1-year-old daughter, Anhelina, in a stroller when the Russian jet-powered drone struck them both. Anhelina was killed instantly, while Inna succumbed to her injuries in hospital.

Pictures showing Anhelina’s bloodied and lifeless body, still strapped in her stroller, her small shoes still perfectly tied, were posted on social media by many including President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Arina Koval, an 8-year-old girl, was also killed in the drone strike, as were 34-year-old Yulia Spichak, 36-year-old Marianna Tsymbal, and a sixth victim who has not been named.

Zelensky described the attack as an “absolute atrocity.” Trump thinks this is “fine.”

In the morning hours of Oct. 20, at least three people were killed and four people injured after a Russian drone struck early morning commuter traffic in the Holosiivskyi District of Kyiv.

Ukraine’s State Emergency Service reported Russia’s drone strike, saying: “The enemy is once again cynically attacking civilians. Behind each such blow are human lives, pain, and ruined destinies.”

This was but one of hundreds of continuous Russian strikes on Ukraine’s capital and dozens of other cities and communities across the country, as the Kremlin is pursuing another theory of victory — attempting to bomb Ukrainian cities into submission.

“328 civilians were killed and 2,105 injured in September 2026.”

According to the U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, at least 328 civilians were killed and 2,105 injured in September 2026, an 85% increase from September 2025. The deadly trend is continuing into October, according to the mission. “The first two weeks of October were among the deadliest periods for civilians in years,” Danielle Bell, head of the U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, said.

Recent U.S. actions have increased the threat for Ukrainian civilians. Ukraine’s Starshield satellite internet terminals, which Ukraine uses to control anti-drone interceptors, have been impeded, while deliveries of vital Patriot interceptors have been deliberately delayed by the Pentagon, Zelensky said on Oct. 18, an allegation corroborated by reporting in the Kyiv Independent and the Washington Post.

The New York Times, meanwhile, reported a Russian plan, presented to the publication by Ukrainian authorities, to destroy Ukraine’s beleaguered energy system once and for all. While Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s energy system have been ongoing throughout the year at a low level, Moscow has recently ramped up mass attacks to wipe out power plants, substations, and gas infrastructure for its fifth winter offensive during the full-scale invasion.

At a recent official event of Russia’s International People’s Unity Club in Moscow, Russian Lt. Col. Alexey Selivano said: “Wherever Russian troops arrive, Ukrainians cease to exist.”

From the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Russian forces have inflicted countless atrocities against Ukraine.

In March 2022, Russian forces carried out a massacre of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war in Bucha, a suburb to the west of Kyiv, after their failed attempt to take the Ukrainian capital. Liberating Ukrainian forces found the bodies of victims, some with their hands tied, lying in the streets. The bodies of 458 people were eventually recovered from Bucha. The majority of them had been shot, tortured or bludgeoned.

From the opening days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the people of Mariupol suffered horrifically during the 86-day Russian siege. To this day, the exact number of Ukrainian civilians killed in Russia’s assault on the city is unknown. According to preliminary estimates by Ukraine’s Center for the Study of Occupation, at least 22,000 civilians were killed during the siege. The true figure might never be known, as Russia has deliberately destroyed graves and cremated bodies in an attempt to conceal the true death toll in Mariupol. Some estimates put the actual figure as high as 87,000.

A Russian airstrike on March 16, 2022, likely killed 300 to 900 people hiding inside the Mariupol Drama Theater, according to different estimates, including an Associated Press investigation and figures by exiled local authorities. They were awaiting evacuation from the then-besieged Mariupol amid heavy Russian bombardment. Footage of the theater shows that the word “Children” in Russian was written in large letters on the square in front of the theater. Russia bombed the building regardless.

Across Ukraine’s occupied territories, Russia has been kidnapping Ukrainian children. Russia’s forcible transfer of children constitutes crimes against humanity, according to a probe by an U.N.-mandated independent commission.

“Based on new evidence, the Commission has now concluded that the Russian authorities committed two types of crimes against humanity: deportation and forcible transfer of children, as well as their enforced disappearance,” Erik Mose, chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, said in a statement on March 12.

This was an issue the White House at least appeared to care about previously, with the U.S. State Department allocating $25 million in funding in March 2026 to help trace and rehabilitate Ukrainian children abducted by Russia.

In May, the United Nations also blacklisted Russian armed and security forces for carrying out systematic sexual assaults, rape, and widespread torture of Ukrainian prisoners. Despite Russia’s refusal to grant access to U.N. human rights investigators, they were still able to independently verify 310 cases of conflict-related sexual violence in Russia and Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory. The victims were prisoners of war and civilian detainees, the vast majority of them men.

SOURCE: Jimmy Rushton and Jonas Heins, “Things Russia has done to Ukraine that Trump thinks are ‘fine,'” Kyiv Independent, 20 October 2026. As a paid-up supporter, I’m happy to share the Kyiv Independent’s excellent journalism with my readers occasionally. }}}}}trr


Though they deny any involvement, the Trump administration and Elon Musk are apparently helping Putin escalate his campaign of terror against Ukraine. Civilian casualties across Ukraine are rising—including women and children—but Trump said Monday that Russia “has been fine on Ukraine.” At the same time, Team Trump looks to be lining up business deals with Russian energy companies. And Marco’s whitewashing of it all is sickening. Plus: Zelensky is tired of Trump’s games, China is playing a curious role on both sides of the war, and JD has another whopper to add to his stack of lies. Former Amb. Michael McFaul joins Tim Miller.

SOURCE: “Former Ambassador NUKES Pathetic Sellout Marco Rubio (w/ Michael McFaul),” The Bulwark (YouTube), 20 October 2026

The Realities of Russia’s Brutal War Against Ukraine and Europe


Independent war journalist and streamer Dylan Burns joins hosts Ryan Geddie and Adam Gurri to talk about his experience embedding in Ukraine since the early months of the war. They discuss his journalistic heroes, how radically the battlefield has changed since 2022 (and what it means to be “the most transparent battlefield in history”), the politics of military and foreign policy, and Dylan’s personal and professional history.

Source: Out of the Jaws (Liberal Currents), YouTube, 25 September 2026


Yesterday I had a very interesting discussion with students after class. I wanted to hear their takes on the war and the prospects for peace.

I began with the way a lot of surveys ask whether they would prefer Ukraine to negotiate a ceasefire or keep fighting. Those questions don’t do much unless you specify what “negotiations” and “peace” are supposed to mean, and the students were quick: what do you mean, negotiated ceasefire? Is that actually peace?

Now, these are highly educated kids at one of the best institutions in Ukraine, so I was not surprised they would flag it. By the same token, they are not like the rest of the population so their answers might not be necessarily representative. What they did with the question only made that clearer.

I said, fair enough, let’s make it concrete. The Ukrainian government has proposed an unconditional ceasefire, which would mean freezing the war on the line of contact and leaving Russia in possession of what it has already taken. The Russians have rejected that more than once. But suppose, for some reason, they accepted. Would you support a settlement on those terms?

That is when it got interesting. What followed was about ten minutes of analysis I am not going to reproduce.

The first thing, they said, is that a ceasefire is not necessarily peace. The Russians want more than they have, and so would likely come back for it after they recover. They put that more as a fact than as a forecast. I said we cannot really know what they would do. They said we can, because they have done it more than once already, and lied about not doing it, so they cannot be trusted. They were also very skeptical that Western security guarantees would actually function.

So the question became what happens in the period between a ceasefire and a Russian attempt to finish the job.

Both sides would try to prepare, but on the balance Russia would have the advantage. It could prepare better and faster, and fighting, if it resumed, would start from a worse position for Ukraine than the one it is in now.

I asked them to spell out why they thought a pause would favor Russia.

The Russian economy is larger, and they can produce most of what they need, while Ukraine is very dependent on foreign finance. If there is a ceasefire, sanctions get looser, and Russia can do all of this more successfully than it can during the war. The world is already losing interest in Ukraine — they said that flatly, though you could hear the bitterness under it — and if the war stops, the attention goes with it, the money dries up, and the West starts making deals with Russia again.

Taking the pressure of the war off would also make domestic corruption worse. They already steal, but the necessities of the war still limit them. In a peace, that limit is gone, preparedness gets worse because of it, and although the military would try to keep things from sliding too far, the politicians and the businessmen are a different problem.

They also said this is not the only view they hear. Some people they know just want to go about their lives without getting bombed. Those people favor peace and do not much care where the line ends up.

I said the Russians want to limit the size of the army.

That produced laughter. It was the one thing they seemed sure would not happen, if only because they see the army as the only reason to hope things can still get better.

Still, I said, there is a lot of uncertainty in how any of this would develop. Russia might come out of a ceasefire in worse shape. The Europeans might not just switch back to dealing with it. They might invest a great deal in Ukraine; there would be opportunities for sizeable returns.

True, they said. There is uncertainty, so you cannot be sure. But the Russians have shown they cannot be trusted, we all know how politicians work, and we understand that some people in the West already have an interest in cutting deals with Russia, so on balance they thought the trajectory that does not favor Ukraine was the more likely one.

Since they would not support a ceasefire along the line of control without some serious protection against the war starting again, I said I was guessing they also would not support giving up the rest of Donbas without a fight.

They would not.

But, I said, what if after another year of fighting you lose it anyway? Would it not make more sense to give it up now?

That, they said, is another big uncertainty. Who knows whether they can take it. They have been trying for a while.

So what is the hope, then?

They shrugged.

Don’t know.

That something will change.

I didn’t have a better answer.

Source: Branislav Slantchev (Facebook), 24 September 2026. Thanks to AL for the heads-up.


Marc Polymeropoulos and Michael Weiss examine the growing Russian threat in Europe, separating the real danger of Russian sabotage and state terrorism from the media panic over a potential Russian invasion of NATO territory. They discuss the intelligence briefing that sparked concerns across Europe, how the assessment has since been revised downward, and why Russia’s escalating sabotage campaign could still lead to a dangerous mass-casualty event. They also examine how Europe can respond to Russian aggression, the role of NATO and Article 5, and why Russia may be testing how willing the West is to push back.

Source: The Bulwark (YouTube), 25 September 2026


Images of Michael Weiss, Branislav Slantchev, and Dylan Burns, above, courtesy of Wikipedia, UC San Diego, and Instagram